georger: I suddenly totally get the feeling you've expressed in some of your posts now.
And that women get when listening to men.

What EU is doing is mansplaining.

It's basically EUsplaining. It's like a new form of DBC character. Right up there with Blevinating (which is unique in it's own right also)

That's also part of why it's tiresome to listen to.

Let's talk DNA matches..or more specifically in this case, apparent 'non-exclusions"

You know that every DNA analysis includes a probability.

What was the probability of this so-called "can't exclude" you're implying with Sheridan's DNA vs the Tie DNA?

Was it 50%?

If only 3 DNA comparisons were done of people, and only 1 wasn't excluded...and the DNA is so bad that even if you had Cooper, maybe you would only get a 50% match, isn't it reasonable to assume that if you had 100 DNA comparisions, 50 would not be excluded?

I mean, explain why you know your DNA "evidence" isn't the same as just rolling dice?

You don't, because you've not seen the DNA comparison report (but like to imply you know what the DNA test revealed...or that what "not excluded" means statistically across say, the population of the US if they were compared??

So you're a DNA expert?

Here is where you become quite transparent...your personality flaw of wanting everyone to think of you as the smartest person in the room.

The DNA diatribe above really accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, what I'm about to say will:

1) The veracity of the DNA is arguably of enough interest to the FBI for them to actually track down, compare and exclude suspects.

2) The FBI went out of their way to compare Sheridan's DNA with their sample.

3) The FBI has not publicly cleared Sheridan by virtue of this DNA comparison.

4) The FBI has publicly cleared both Weber and LD by virtue of their DNA tests.

5) Sheridan stated publicly that the FBI (MJF) told him his DNA didn't match.

6) I proved that the FBI (MJF) did not tell Sheridan that his DNA didn't match.

Now let me ask you, why is knowledge of the above information insufficient to discuss Sheridan and his DNA comparison? What more do I need to know about DNA to be qualified to discuss it in the context of Sheridan and DBC?

Ok, I'll be the dumbest person in the room.

Answer me this question, and say how you know it's the most reasonable guess.

Did Larry Carr contact Sheridan (as Sheridan claims? I'm not exactly sure if he does or ??) in 2009.
If so, why did Larry Carr do that.

I've seen you claim that it has meaning, in the past.

What meaning does it have and why do you think that?

Here Snow, let me help by posting the entire letter to Sheridan (in blue). Of course, I'll do you the favor of deleting your real name from the reprint.

Dear Sheridan,

I hope all is well with you. I am writing because as you know I no longer have a way of reaching out to you.

I'm not certain whether you've checked the DB Cooper Forum lately, that said there has been somewhat of a tiff between ---------(snowmman) and Robert Blevins over your book, The Idiot's Frightful Laughter. More to the point, ---------has decided that he wants to make your book available for sale via lulu.com with all of the proceeds going to you. Personally I do not agree with this decision. It seems apparent to me that you are not interested in making your book available for purchase, at least via that format.

I have continued to investigate the DB Cooper case extensively and have even gone as far as speaking with Claire in Boise. Nothing has changed my mind: I still think you pulled off the DB Cooper caper 47 years ago. As I've told you previously, I do not hold this against you. Furthermore, I do not think that this event 47 years ago makes you a bad guy.

I'd like to invite you to lunch. I'm planning on being in your area in the near future and would enjoy the opportunity to meet you in person. Please reach out to me at ----------- or --------------.

Best,
Eric

The next time you decide to print portions of a letter don't cherry pick like a chump.

Yet another classic Snow dickmove.

Instead of a figurative dick-sucking, EU, I think you might have gotten better results by arranging a real dick-sucking.

Just some advice.

well, now 3 posts have to be removed because of quoting. Geez, the web never forgets!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Instead of a figurative dick-sucking, EU, I think you might have gotten better results by arranging a real dick-sucking.

Just some advice.

You should probably remove this post while you can. Not only does it make you look bad, I'm pretty sure the other people who visit this site are sick and tired of your juvenile rants.

Excuse me gentlemen for interrupting your delightful repartee, but I was asked a few pages back if I gave Sheridan a copy of my book. No, I did not. I don't have his address. I suppose I would have sent him a copy, if I did.

That said, others tell me that Pete has told them that I have 28 lies in my chapter on him. Impressive math skills for a writer.

3) Sheridan said the dummy reserve was daisy chained.

4) There is no way that Sheridan could know this info unless he actually looked inside the dummy reserve and saw that it was

Exactly. But I just read, as I assume you did, Peterson's explanation that he was familiar with the training rig from previous training sessions.

How do we even know it was a training rig to begin with? Because people familiar with it told us it was. Peterson was familiar with a rig at that facility and described it, after concluding it was the same rig given to Cooper. I'm satisfied.